MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preventing transition “regret”: An institutional ethnography of gender-affirming medical care assessment practices in Canada

2021· article· en· W3207433290 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kinnon R. MacKinnon, Florence Ashley, Hannah Kia, June Sing Hong Lam, Yonah Krakowsky, Lori E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyRegretSociologyGender studiesGerontologyMedicineAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a person openly "regrets" their gender transition or "detransitions" this bolsters within the medical community an impression that transgender and non-binary (trans) people require close scrutiny when seeking hormonal and surgical interventions. Despite the low prevalence of "regretful" patient experiences, and scant empirical research on "detransition", these rare transition outcomes profoundly organize the gender-affirming medical care enterprise. Informed by the tenets of institutional ethnography, we examined routine gender-affirming care clinical assessment practices in Canada. Between 2017 and 2018, we interviewed 11 clinicians, 2 administrators, and 9 trans patients (total n = 22), and reviewed 14 healthcare documents pertinent to gender-affirming care in Canada. Through our analysis, we uncovered pervasive regret prevention techniques, including requirements that trans patients undergo extensive psychosocial evaluations prior to transitioning. Clinicians leveraged psychiatric diagnoses as a proxy to predict transition regret, and in some cases delayed or denied medical treatments. We identified cases of patient dissatisfaction with surgical results, and a person who detransitioned. These accounts decouple transition regret and detransition, and no participants endorsed stricter clinical assessments. We traced the clinical work of preventing regret to cisnormativity and transnormativity in medicine which together construct regret as "life-ending", and in turn drives clinicians to apply strategies to mitigate the perceived risk of malpractice legal action when treating trans people, specifically. Yet, attempts to prevent these outcomes contrast with the material healthcare needs of trans people. We conclude that regret and detransitioning are unpredictable and unavoidable clinical phenomena, rarely appearing in "life-ending" forms. Critical research into the experiences of people who detransition is necessary to bolster comprehensive gender-affirming care that recognizes dynamic transition trajectories, and which can address clinicians' fears of legal action-cisgender anxieties projected onto trans patients who are seeking medical care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207